The cover story of the 9 April, 2005, edition of New Scientist magazine bore the title “Life’s Top 10 greatest Inventions.” The report resorted to evolutionist myths and maintained that the present order in the world formed as the result of phenomena in nature caused by blind chance and that man also came into possession of his present-day biological abilities by chance.

The cover story of the 9 April, 2005, edition of New Scientist magazine bore the title “Life’s Top 10 greatest Inventions.” The report resorted to evolutionist myths and maintained that the present order in the world formed as the result of phenomena in nature caused by blind chance and that man also came into possession of his present-day biological abilities by chance.

In the pages that follow the scientific invalidity and internal inconsistencies of this claim and the true facts about what evolutionists seek to depict as “the discovery of nature” will be set out.

Errors in the Claim that Evolution Invented Death

The journal in question claims that death is a discovery of the alleged process of evolution. In order to see the illogical nature of this claim, and how it is devoid of any evidence, all we need do is to examine the examples cited in the magazine.

These include the way that certain cells in the embryo form gaps between five fingers by committing suicide, how white blood cells risk death in order to protect the body against certain bacteria, and how cells prevent human beings dying from cancer by their regular deaths. It is alleged in New Scientist that this controlled cell death was invented by evolution, and that it makes it possible for man to survive.

Even a little thought on this subject is sufficient to grasp the lack of logic here. The mechanism described as the process of evolution is based solely upon chance. In other words, in this alleged process, according to evolutionists’ claims, inanimate substances with no mind or consciousness are able, by chance, to construct such important systems as to represent the basis of human life, and to exhibit astonishingly conscious behaviour. According to this claim, for example, cells that see the webbed hands of the embryo understand that those webbed hands will be a source of discomfort after birth and that the living thing will not be able to use its hands properly. The cells that constitute that webbing then decide, of their own free will and mind, or with the alleged order of the unknown imaginary will which is called evolution as evolutionists claim, to die. In addition, the level of deaths is neither too high nor too low. Otherwise deformed fingers would be the result, and the right number of cells die in every human being and the webbing between the fingers is eliminated.

If the cells did not die in an ordered manner human life would be impossible, and people would soon die of cancer. All of this shows that our cells act under a flawless supervision. It is impossible for a system, known as the process of evolution, which has no mind or consciousness and is totally based on chance, to provide such supervision. If such a system had come into being by chance, as evolutionists would have us believe, then the questions of which cells should die in the body, when and for what purpose, would all be left up to coincidence. Uncontrolled cell growth would continue in the body, and the human body would turn into a deformed mass of flesh, covered with tumours.

When the controlled cell deaths in the body are examined it can clearly be seen that life is under the control of a superior mind and will. The magazine in question describes these cell deaths as “Programmed Cell Deaths.” If there is a programmed action, then there must be a creator of the program. For example, an oven cannot program itself to work at a specific temperature and time. There must be something with a mind and consciousness that programs the required temperature and time into the oven. To maintain the opposite means to ascribe intelligence and consciousness to the oven, which is nonsensical. Thus it is that evolution claims that an imaginary concept with no intelligence or consciousness made conscious programs, which is equally nonsensical. It is evident that all the cells in the human body have been flawlessly programmed for human life by one with a superior knowledge, mind and power. That great power is our Creator, God.

There is another point in the magazine claims that needs to be considered. The article in question noted those elements of cell death that constitute an advantage for people. Yet cells also lead to death, as in the case of old age, which means gradual cell death. Therefore, according to evolutionist logic, these cell deaths are not beneficial to the living thing. According to fundamental evolutionist logic, features that confer no advantage are eliminated over the course of time by the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, according to their claim, the imaginary force known as the process of evolution should have eliminated these deaths after seeing that they kill living things. In other words again, the magazine in question is in conflict with its own evolutionist logic.

The explanation with regard to death is this: there is death on Earth, because in the same way that God gives a soul to beings, He later takes it away. This is at God’s discretion. Like the death of cells in the body, that of human beings themselves is under His control. God has determined a destiny, a time of death for all entities, all cells and all people. Everyone will depart from this world when the time comes, in the manner appointed for them. Therefore, there can be no question of a process, or an evolutionary strategy as New Scientist described it, in the death of living things, as evolutionists would like us to believe. Human beings and all other living things live at God’s discretion, for as long as their destiny ordains, and then die. God reveals this fact in a verse:

""Every self will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us.""  (Qur’an, 21:35)

The Error of Portraying Symbiosis as Evidence for Evolution

 

New Scientist magazine sought to depict symbiosis, the way that living things provide benefits both for themselves and for each other by living together, as an evolutionary development. First and foremost, the approach adopted here is erroneous, and also astonishing from the evolutionist point of view. Not a single proof that any of the examples cited was the result of an evolutionary process was offered. Moreover, all the examples clearly show the existence of a flawless order in the world. Neither the bacteria that provide light for fish, nor the orchids that collaborate with fungi to reproduce, nor the insects which carry plant pollens have the consciousness, desire and decisiveness with which to construct such systems and advantageous unions.  It cannot be related to the ability of an organism  to determine the ideal environment for itself, its ideal partner and the ideal system of mutual collaboration and to live its life accordingly, and for generation after generation to keep doing this in the same way.

It is impossible for a plover to settle in the mouth of a crocodile in the knowledge that it can offer dental hygiene in return for food and also provide a benefit for the crocodile, and that the crocodile will understand the advantageous nature of this relationship and refrain from harming it. It is also impossible for it to teach all the other members of the species that come after it. These things all require consciousness. An illusory evolutionary process based on unconscious chance cannot be what makes these decisions. The ideal environment and the way in which they will live alongside with other creature are inspired in them. It is God Who inspires these things in them, Who created them and knows the needs of each, and Who made them compatible with one another. In one verse God reveals His inspiration in living things by citing the example of the honey bee:

""Your Lord revealed to the bees: “Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow.” From inside them comes a drink of varying colours, containing healing for humanity. There is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect."" (Qur’an, 16:68-69)

 The Error That Photosynthesis Is an Invention of the So-Called Process of Evolution

Photosynthesis is described as an invention of the co-called process of evolution in New Scientist. The fact is, however, that bearing in mind what a complex system photosynthesis, which consists of many stages and elements, actually is, the groundless and illogical nature of evolutionist claims is plain for all to see. The diagrams below summarise the process of photosynthesis as succinctly as possible:

The above diagrams show only the general stages of the highly complex mechanism of photosynthesis. It is impossible for even one stage in this cycle to have come about by chance. Any random intervention in this system will entirely ruin it. This magnificent mechanism is one of the flawless systems created by God.

It is of course impossible for such a complex system to come about by chance, as the result of inanimate and unconscious substances organising themselves and establishing the conditions necessary for the continuation of life. In order to see the impossibility of this, let us investigate what photosynthesis is.

Photosynthesis is the way that plants and some bacteria and single-celled organisms use solar energy to produce sugar from carbon dioxide and water. In its simplest form, photosynthesis can be formulated as follows:

6H2O + 6CO2 – PHOTOSYNTHESIS à C6H12O6 + 6O2

This chemical formula may be translated thus:

6 water molecules + six carbon dioxide molecules turn into 1 sugar molecule +  six oxygen molecules as a result of PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

Although the formula looks simple, the countless processes that take place during photosynthesis contain complex systems that operate at the electron level. The system includes different pigments, various salts, minerals, trace elements (such as ferredoxin, adenosine triphosphate, etc.), sub-catalysts, substances that assume various tasks and other chemical agents. Considering that plants require 30 different proteins in order to manufacture such a simple sugar molecule as “saccharose,” the complexity of the process as a whole becomes more apparent.

As a result of the reactions taking place, the energy in the Sun is stored inside the sugar molecule produced. Unused solar energy is converted into usable chemical energy, a process in which the chlorophyll molecule in green leaves and a pigment capable of absorbing light in bacteria and some single-celled organisms play a large role.

There can be no life on Earth without photosynthesis.

In order to carry out this process, which we have summarised in brief, millions of reactions take place in the systems of living things capable of making photosynthesis, countless molecules become involved and each process possesses its own separate complexity. In the meantime, the organism making photosynthesis behaves with care to prevent the solar energy reaching it being redundant or harmful. It receives no assistance from anywhere else, and the miraculous system works to perfection. Modern-day technology has been unable to unravel all the details of how this system functions, let alone to imitate photosynthesis. A mechanism of such importance to the continuation of life is linked solely to green leaves and single-celled organisms.

Since Darwinists present a picture in which life emerged by chance, they also maintain that these first living things also developed the photosynthesis system by chance. However, they have never been able to explain how a bacterium could completely alter its own physiology and start manufacturing its own food. Indeed, when we look at all other evolutionist sources we encounter similar fairy tale-like expressions regarding the origins of photosynthesis. Some evolutionists, however, who have clearly seen that the complexity of the mechanism could never come into being by chance, have had to admit this fact. The words of the Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy on this subject are particularly striking:

“Photosynthesis is a rather complex process and it would seem impossible for it to appear in an organelle inside the cell. That is because it is impossible for all the stages to occur at once, and meaningless for them to do so one by one.” (1)

The German evolutionary biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth openly states that photosynthesis is a process that cannot be learned by any cell:

No cell possesses the capacity to “learn” a process in the true sense of the world. It is impossible for any cell to come by the ability to carry out such functions as respiration or photosynthesis, neither when it first comes into being, nor later in life. (2)

Indeed, even New Scientist felt it necessary to make it clear as it covered these claims that there were still uncertainties in this aspect of the theory of evolution:

Before photosynthesis, life consisted of single-celled microbes whose sources of energy were chemicals such as sulphur, iron and methane. Then, around 3.5 billion years ago, or perhaps earlier, a group of microbes developed the ability to capture energy from sunlight to help make the carbohydrates they needed for growth and fuel. It is unclear how they achieved this feat… (3)

It is impossible for such a special and vital system to come into existence by chance and function flawlessly for so long as life survives. In addition, this mechanism is an “irreducibly complex” system, from which no component can be removed and which can only maintain its functionality so long as all its components are present. Therefore, it is a contravention of the general claim of Darwinism to expect a mechanism, the components of which serve no purpose on their own, to form over thousands or millions of years. The system that carries out photosynthesis came into being fully formed and in a single moment in green-leaved plants and bacteria capable of making photosynthesis. It is clear that such a miracle, which man has not yet fully understood was specially designed. All plants and photosynthetic bacteria were created together with the ability to make photosynthesis.

New Scientist ends by advising people to thank the primordial oxygen-hating microbes for their biochemical inventiveness. That sentence alone is an indication of the superficial thinking of the New Scientist authors. The entities that the New Scientist writer wanted the readers to thank are organisms that are unaware of the abilities they possess. They are unaware of the complex processes they carry out. Rather than to these entities themselves, gratitude should be directed towards God, Who created and maintains them, and Who causes all these reactions to take place flawlessly in every one. That is the fundamental truth that New Scientist magazine is unwilling to accept.

In the Qur’an God has this to say about those who attribute properties belonging to God to other entities, and who thus take entities other than God as their deities:

""Do they make things into partner-deities which cannot create anything and are themselves created; which are not capable of helping them and cannot even help themselves?""  (Qur’an, 7:191-192)

""Instead of God you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.""  (Qur’an, 29:17)

The Error That Man Acquired the Ability to Produce Language and His Brain Power as a
Result of an Evolutionary Process

 

New Scientist magazine maintained that language was the ultimate evolutionary innovation within the imaginary evolutionary process.

All Darwinists who suggest this fall into a major error: that is the fact that human beings have consciousness beyond their ability to talk. Darwinist efforts to teach apes to speak are the result of their ignoring this important fact. The ability to produce language is not an attribute that can be acquired solely as the result of various physical features. The most important attribute necessary for producing language is consciousness, an attribute which animals lack.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky, one of the most eminent figures in the field of genetics and philosophy of language, has once said that attempting to teach linguistic skills to animals is irrational -- like trying to teach people to flap their arms and fly. (4)

Therefore, Darwinists first have to account for the way in which human consciousness emerged long before the ability to produce language, not a single stage of which they are able to explain. Evolutionists are unable to explain the emergence of the human mind, which understands language, is able to interpret what is said, can grasp and describe a situation it has never before seen or experienced, which is able to form an image in the brain and then express this in words in a flawless manner. Another scientist to explain that the ability to produce language is peculiar to the human brain is the evolutionist Philip Lieberman, a Rhode Island Brown University professor of linguistics:

But though animal trainers and investigators have tried since the seventeenth century to teach chimpanzees to talk, no chimpanzee has ever managed it. True, a chimpanzee"s sound-producing anatomy is fundamentally different from our own. But chimpanzees might still produce a muffled approximation of human speech if their brains could only plan and execute the necessary articulate maneuvers. To do this, they would have to have our brains. (5)

New Scientist magazine, which covered the report in question, admits that the evolutionary development of language has still not been unravelled:

A decade ago, John Maynard Smith, then emeritus professor of biology at the University of Sussex, UK, and Eors Szathmary from the Institute of Advanced Study in Budapest, Hungary, published The Major Transitions in Evolution, their description of life"s great leaps forward. They identified these crucial steps as innovations in the way information was organised and transmitted from one generation to the next - starting with the origin of life itself and ending with language.

Exactly how our ancestors took this leap is possibly the hardest problem in science, Szathmary says. He points out that complex language - language with syntax and grammar, which builds up meaning through a hierarchical arrangement of subordinate clauses - evolved just once. Only human brains are able to produce language, and, contrary to popular belief, this ability is not confined to specialised regions in the brain such as Broca"s and Wernicke"s areas. If these are damaged others can take over. Szathmary likens language to an amoeba, and the human brain to the habitat in which it can thrive. "A surprisingly large part of our brain can sustain language," he says. (6)

As stated by scientists in the field, the ability to produce language can only arise together with consciousness and intellect. It is impossible for a fictitious process such as evolution, which is based on chance and attributes the origin of life to unconscious matter, to give rise to human consciousness. Even if the greatest professors in the world join forces with all the means available in the world and use all the very latest technology they will still be unable to produce human consciousness. They can never create an entity from stone and soil that is capable of thinking, speaking, coming up with ideas, rejoicing and making discoveries, and that possesses feelings such as love and devotion. Blind chance can never achieve what conscious beings with advanced technology cannot. Consciousness and mind are a property that God has given to human beings alone. As He reveals in the Qur’an, God breathed His spirit into man, thus creating a being able to think, speak and reason, with spiritual values. It is also God Who teaches man words, and teaches him to speak. The fact that it is God Who grants the power of speech is revealed in Verse 21 of Surah Fussilat:

""God gave us speech as He has given speech to everything.""  (Qur’an, 41:21)

The Error That Only the Strongest Survive in the Micro World

 

New Scientist maintained that the battle between the parasites and their hosts are the most powerful driving forces to accelerate the process of evolution on Earth. They claimed that their effects on the entities on which they live and the way they overcame these led to them having a major influence on both their own so-called evolution and that of their hosts.

According to these claims, someone suffering under the effect of parasites from the genetic disorder sickle cell disease is allegedly “benefited” by developing immunity to malaria. Contagious diseases make a virus less deadly by improving the so-called evolution of parasites.

The claims here regarding the so-called evolution and evolution-causing effect of parasites very definitely rest on no scientific grounds. A parasite attack on living things has no power to cause evolution. Living things are weakened by the effects of a virus, and may die. This does not mean, however, that subsequent generations will be weak and sickly. Moreover, in the present day immunity to many viral diseases has been developed, and a great many diseases have been neutralised. A healthy lifestyle and diet have further increased resistance to various viruses.

The example of transposons employed by New Scientist magazine is particularly noteworthy in terms of the errors it contains. According to the magazine, a fragment of DNA can cut and paste themselves over the genome, can be transformed into new genes or encourage the mutation and the DNA shuffle that stimulates genetic variation. This account is accurate, but the point on which New Scientist is mistaken is this: there is no evolution here. In order for evolution, as the evolutionists themselves claim, to take place, information which did not previously exist needs to come into being in some way and be added to the DNA. Here, however, existing information merely changes its location. The same DNA fragment acts within the same organism. All that occurs is variation. No new living entity emerges as a result of this change, and the living thing does not acquire any organs it did not possess before. No mutation can add new information to or improve a living thing. All it can do is make changes in its already existing system. And that is not evolution.

Since evolutionists are keen to portray the concept of evolution, which is groundless and based on the deification of blind coincidences, as an irresistible force, they seek to use every specimen they encounter along these lines. That is the reason for these claims regarding parasites. As we have seen, however, the more one goes into the bases of these claims, the more it can be seen they have nothing to do with evolution. The invalidity of the evidence they supposedly offer can be seen in all its detail. A virus can only affect or weaken a human being if God so chooses. It has no independent power of its own, and it is not possible for it to. It is their unwillingness to accept this important fact that lies at the heart of these evolutionist errors.

The Error That the Eyes Formed as the Result of Evolutionary Stages

 

The magazine in question state that the eye formed as the result of an evolutionary process and that this “important invention” subsequently influenced the lifestyles of all living things. Trilobite fossil eyes dating back to the Cambrian period some 543 million years ago are cited, and reference is made to their so-called ancestors which possessed light-sensitive cells but of which, for some reason, no trace has ever been found.

New Scientist magazine  is making a grave error regarding the eye. The human eye, with its amazing structure, is an incredibly complex system consisting of 40 separate, delicate components. The most fundamental thing to make sight possible is these 40 components being present at one and the same time and working harmoniously together.

We may compare this to a camera. All its components have to be present, in the right place and with the right functions, if the camera is to work. Even if you possess all these components they will still mean nothing and serve no purpose if they are randomly strewn about. These components need to be combined in the right place and the right manner. The eye is incomparably more complex than any camera. It is an organ with “irreducible complexity,” requiring all its components to be present and functioning. The meaning of this is as follows: the eye will not work, in other words it is functionless, in the absence of a single component part. All these parts need to be present at one and the same time for it to acquire functionality. The theory of evolution maintains that functionless organs or structures gradually atrophy. Therefore, in order for the eyes to exist it has to be present together with all these component parts. This is one of the proofs that the eye was created. In the same way that a person can be sure that a camera he sees when walking along the street did not come into existence spontaneously, so the eye is an organ that cannot have come into being by chance. Like all other organs, the eye was created. The superior power that created the eye is Almighty God.

In covering claims regarding the eye, New Scientist magazine claimed that even light-sensitive cells could only have evolved in half a million years.

There is an important point that needs to be noted here: evolutionists give the reader general information about how the imaginary simple stages in complex systems emerged, and seek to give the impression that they actually possess facts about these stages. The fact is, however, that these “simple” stages, that evolutionists attempt to squeeze into a few brief lines are by no means simple at all. In order for the light-sensitive “primitive eye” referred to by evolutionists to form, some of a living thing’s cells have to become sensitive to light, it has to have the ability to turn these perceptions to electrical signals, a special nerve network needs to form between the cells and the brain, and a sight centre to analyse this information has to develop inside the brain. This system is exceedingly complex and has an irreducible structure. It cannot be accounted for in terms of chance.

What is more, such a formation in natural selection provides no advantage for a living thing. Every component of the stages in the system needs to emerge at once. When eye cells undergo a change, a nerve network connected to the brain also has to form at the same time. No matter whether half a million years go by or 600 million years, it is still impossible for the simplest of such systems to come into being by chance and actually be functional.

The article in question also cited the trilobite eye, belonging to the Cambrian period, in terms of the first complex eyes to emerge on Earth. These complex eyes, first encountered around 543 million years ago, are a major proof that completely undermine all the claims of the theory of evolution on the subject and eradicate all the imaginary intermediate form fossils suggested by it, and that show that, like every other system, the eye is a perfect system created by God. You can find further details on this subject HERE.

The Error That Single-Celled Creatures Turned into Multi-Celled Ones at the end of an Evolutionary Process

 

Among its claims, New Scientist magazine suggested that multi-celled organisms gradually evolved from single-celled ones, and set out a number of imaginary reasons for this. Among these was a single-celled organism deciding to unite with other cells for protection against predators, and that single-celled creatures, that are unable to grow flagella to move and divide and the same time, decided to move to a state in which they could both move and divide, in other worlds to become multi-celled. According to the magazine, various causes born out of needs caused single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-celled ones. As always, however, it said not a word about how this might have come about.

The story related in the article is of a kind that might provoke doubts in the minds of those unfamiliar with biology. This is a fact known to all: there is a huge structural difference between single-celled and multi-celled organisms. There is cellular specialisation and division of labour in the development of multi-celled organisms. Every cell has its own task, and every cell is bound to other cells. For example, initially the human body forms through the division of a single cell, but as the process goes on the responsibilities assumed by all the cells change. Each cell behaves according to the division of labour determined in the body. Since they are connected to one another, there is a special communication system among the cells. Hormones are regulated and the nerve network in the body is shaped accordingly. Multi-cellularity is not a simple numerical feature, but a special design of great complexity that forms within an impeccable division of labour.

All these processes require a consciousness. Evolutionists are unable to account for the chance emergence of a single cell, let alone being able to explain the conscious behaviour between cells. The complexity in a single cell can only be accounted for in terms of intelligent design. The system that complex cells comprise is another example of this intelligent design, in other words of the fact of creation.

In addition to all this, there are no intermediate forms demonstrating a progression from one cell to many. All the fossil records give countless examples of single-celled organisms, and countless multi-celled ones, but no fossil showing a transition from one to the other has ever been found.

In short, evolutionists’ claims concerning the transition from single-celled organisms to multi-celled ones are nothing more than conjecture. All living things, single-celled and multi-celled organisms, are entities created by God, brought into being in a single moment with all their special and complex structures.

Conclusion:

Since the theory of evolution can in no way be proven, New Scientist magazine considered certain subjects on which Darwinists find themselves in the worst predicaments, and presented these to readers under the caption “inventions of evolution.” Subjects that baffle evolution were specially selected, reference was made to an imaginary evolutionary process concerning these, without the slightest evidence being offered, and the attempt was made to depict all this as a result of this alleged evolutionary process. However, their subject matter is no more than a fairy tale from start to finish, and has no scientific validity whatsoever. The objective behind the article was to establish a mass of people who believe in evolution, and so no need to apply to scientific methods was felt.

New Scientist needs to accept the fact that people are much more aware of the scientific facts. By now people are clearly aware that neither an eye, nor a brain, nor the intelligent examples among living things can come into being by chance. The magazine in question must leave aside their deceptive methods, call on people to learn the truth, and make the scientific issues they deal with credible by means of scientific evidence and explanations. If a claim clashes with the facts revealed by science, then this is an attempt to deceive the reader, to cause him or her to believe in something that is not true, to abandon impartiality and to seek to impose an ideology on people. We call on New Scientist to behave in a scientific manner.

 

• The claims made in the article titled “Superorganisms” in New Scientist have been refuted many times before on this site. You can read these responses HERE:
  http://www.darwinism-watch.com/new_scientist_030628.php
  http://www.darwinism-watch.com/focus_0303.php

 

1- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim, Ankara, Meteksan Yayinlari, 1984, s.8
2- Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorlarin Sessiz Gecesi 2, Alan Yayincilik, Kasim 1996, İstanbul, Çev: Veysel Atayman, s.60-61
3- New Scientist, sayı 2494, 9 Nisan 2005, sf. 26
4- N. Chomsky, Language and Linguistics s. 65
5- Philip Lieberman, "Peak Capacity," The Sciences (vol. 37, Nov/Dec 1997), p. 27. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-028.htm